Posts Tagged ‘Catholics’

Imagine if Trump had used the phrase “needy Latinos” and the media got ahold of it.

But it was the Clinton team that did that. So you have to search for that from anywhere BUT the mainstream media.

If you have any fear of God AT ALL, if you have any love for the United States of America AT ALL, you will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton. And frankly you will suck it up and choose the lesser of the two evils that we have to choose from as our next president.

In the exchange, Mr. Halpin mocks media mogul Rupert Murdoch for raising his children in the Catholic faith and said the most “powerful elements” in the conservative movement are all Catholic.

“It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy,” Mr. Halpin said.

“I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they become evangelicals,” Ms. Palmieri responded.

“Excellent point,” Mr. Halpin wrote back. “They can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.”

The advocacy group CatholicVote.org called on the Clinton campaign to fire Ms. Palmieri.

“Hillary Clinton has already called half of her opponents’ supporters ‘a basket of deplorables’ and ‘irredeemable,’ and now it comes out that her campaign spokeswoman dismissively question[ed] the sincerity of Catholic Americans’ faith,” said Brian Burch, the group’s president. “Had Palmieri spoken this way about other groups, she [would be] dismissed. Palmieri must resign immediately or be fired.”

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who is Catholic, also blasted the Clinton campaign.

“If anything, these statements reveal the Clinton campaign’s hostile attitude toward people of faith in general,” Mr. Ryan said in a statement. “All Americans of faith should take a long, hard look at this and decide if these are the values we want to be represented in our next president. If Hillary Clinton continues to employ people with biased and bigoted views, it’s clear where her priorities are.”

[…]

Although Hispanics have been key to Mrs. Clinton’s voting coalition, they, too, were demeaned by Clinton campaign officials. In an August 2015 message to other Clinton aides with the subject line “Needy Latinos and 1 easy call,” Mr. Podesta lays out a strategy for getting former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former Energy Secretary Federico Pena and other leading Hispanic Democrats on board with Mrs. Clinton’s presidential bid.

Perhaps least surprisingly, the emails prove once again that the Clinton campaign had little respect for Mr. Sanders‘ supporters. Messages show clear coordination between Clinton aides and supposedly neutral officials such as the Democratic National Committee, including Donna Brazile, now the interim chairwoman.

Party leaders also worked with the Clinton campaign to trick Sanders backers into believing they had won concessions from the Democratic establishment.

In a March 20 message, former party official Mark Alan Siegel is seen offering a plan to reduce the role of Democratic superdelegates in future elections. Although the proposal was sold to Sanders voters as an attempt to make the presidential nominating process more of a grass-roots endeavor, the email raises serious questions about whether the entire effort was just a smokescreen to assuage angry progressives.

“I’ve lived through many national conventions and have found that it’s critical that all delegates, especially those representing losing candidates, emerge from the convention feeling that they have won something, achieved something tangible,” Mr. Siegel wrote in the message to former Clinton chief of staff Tamera Luzzatto. “I think this is terribly important especially with people like Bernie’s sometimes self-righteous ideologues. We want them to go home happy and enthusiastic in working their asses off for Hillary.”

Mr. Siegel went on to explain that by reducing the role of superdelegates in the future, Sanders supporters could claim a victory that would have no impact on the Clinton campaign’s victory in this cycle.

“Here’s my idea. Bernie and his people have been bitching about super delegates and the huge percentage that have come out for Hillary. … Why not throw Bernie a bone and reduce the super delegates in the future” to only elected Democrats? he wrote. “So if we ‘give’ Bernie this in the Convention’s rules committee, his people will think they’ve ‘won’ something from the Party Establishment. And it functionally doesn’t make any difference anyway. They win. We don’t lose. Everyone is happy.”

The 716 voting superdelegates in the Democratic primary overwhelmingly supported Mrs. Clinton, drawing charges from Mr. Sanders and his backers that the entire process was unfair.

Had this kind of hate and bigotry been captured on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign toward ANYONE, the New York Times and the mainstream media would have been calling for his head on a pike. But it’s leftist hate and bigotry and it’s Hillary Clinton’s campaign, so it’s all right.

“There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church,” Sandy Newman, president and founder of the progressive nonprofit Voices for Progress, writes to Podesta in an email titled “opening for a Catholic Spring? just musing.”

The emails were leaked in the third round of releases of Podesta’s emails by WikiLeaks.

Newman, who is Jewish, admits he does not know much about the Catholic Church and isn’t volunteering personally to subvert Catholic teachings. “Even if the idea isn’t crazy, I don’t qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would ‘plant the seeds of the revolution,’ or who would plant them.”

In response, Podesta assures Newman to rest easy for he and his progressive pals have already created organizations explicitly designed to infiltrate the Catholic Church with progressive ideology, though he cautions that the time may not be right for full revolution —just yet.

“We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up,” Podesta writes.

The conversation further reveals the contempt with which radical progressives view Catholics and the Catholic Church. On Monday, WikiLeaks published an email showing Democratic operatives mocking conservative Catholics.

A scholar at the Left-wing Center for American Progress emailed Podesta in 2011 bashing then-Fox News CEO Roger Ailes for his Catholic Faith.

“It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith,” John Halpin wrote to Podesta, and Jennifer Palmieri, now the communications director of the Clinton campaign. “They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.”

Palmieri, agreed.

“I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion,” she wrote. “Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.”

These people know better than you. They should rule over you. If you oppose them, they should be able to crush you, crush your family, crush everything you believe is sacred, crush everything you teach to your children.

The fact that these people weren’t fired the day they WROTE these emails proves Hillary is rabidly anti-Christian, all her lies to the contrary. But this story has been out for days now and all these wicked secular humanists who falsely claim to be “Catholic” or “Christian” are still in power.

Because they are with Hillary and Hillary is with them in the pursuit of the Antichrist.

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

The FBI declined to comment directly, but instead referred Fox News to multiple public statements Comey has made in which he has thrown water on the idea that politics played a role in the agency’s decision not to recommend charges.

Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be in the White House; she should be in the Big House doing hard time, breaking big rocks into little rocks. At least, she should do it for two minutes until her diseased body collapses.

These people have contempt – naked contempt and outright hate – for everything that most Americans stand for and believe in. But none of the rules that apply to the rest of us apply to these people. They can say or do anything and get away with it because a corrupt world system is joined to a corrupt world propaganda machine a.k.a. “the mainstream media” and the rest of us are led by the nose and duped by lies.

These people are transnational. They don’t care about America. They care only about world socialism and the power of their beloved State over you and your family and your lives.

It’s Star Wars, and the republic is about to hand over all power to the Dark Emperor. Only it’s real life, and the Bible prophesied it 2,000 years ago and said we were heading for the Antichrist.

The Cardinal Newman Society, a national organization to help renew and strengthen Catholic identity in Catholic higher education, issued the following statement:

August 1, 2012, marks the formal beginning of the persecution of Catholic colleges and universities that wish to remain faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

As of today, the Obama administration is forcing Catholic colleges to help students and employees obtain no-cost sterilizations, abortion-causing drugs and contraceptives, and also “counseling” promoting these practices.

And who are the first victims of the Obama administration’s new Sexual Revolution? Catholic colleges and the parents of Catholic college students!

One year ago, when the Obama administration shocked the nation with “interim final” regulations for its HHS mandate, it publicly admitted that it had rushed the rules to ensure that college students get “contraceptive services” in the 2012-2013 school year. Many student insurance plans renew in August.

In other words, the Obama administration’s desire to support students’ sexual activity without even one year’s delay is precisely why:

1) they rushed to publish a poorly constructed religious exemption, and

2) they refused to accept comments on the interim regulations until after they were issued.

Many news publications have deceptively reported that the HHS mandate is delayed another year for religious institutions, without explaining that many religious colleges and employers cannot meet the Obama administration’s arbitrary criteria for the delay.

Catholic colleges that covered “contraceptive services” as of February 10, 2012, are ineligible for the delay. But infidelity is not the only reason why Catholic colleges may be affected:

· They may have complied with state laws which violate religious freedom.

· They may have been unaware of provisions included in their health plans by insurance companies or by college personnel in prior years.

· They may operate in areas without affordable coverage that excludes contraception.

Moreover, the past infidelity of a Catholic college is no excuse for the federal government to violate that college’s First Amendment right to uphold Catholic teachings.

And further, the Obama administration is violating the rights of Catholic parents who send students to Catholic colleges, reasonably expecting their religious beliefs to be upheld. There is no religious freedom when the federal government prevents Catholic families from freely choosing authentic Catholic education.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, had this to say in an interview with Chris Wallace:

WUERL: This lawsuit isn’t about contraception. It is about religious freedom. Embedded in the mandate is a radically new definition of what institutes a religious community, what constitutes religious ministry — brand new and never fortified in the federal level. That’s what we are arguing about.

The lawsuit said we have every right to serve in this community as we have served for decades and decades. The new definition says you are not really religious if you serve people other than your own and if you hire people other than your own. That wipes out all of the things that we have been doing, all the things that we contribute to the common good — our schools, our health care services, our Catholic charity and even parish soup kitchens and pantries. All that’s wiped out.

WALLACE: Let me pick up on that, because the White House says — the famous accommodation by President Obama, that they changed the mandates so that the insurance companies that you are dealing with, to provide health insurance coverage to your employees have to provide the birth control for free and that the charities and the schools and the hospitals, don’t have to do anything.

WUERL: This is one of the reasons why we say the accommodation didn’t change anything, because so many of our institutions, certainly the archdiocese, is self insured. We are the insurer.

Obama is trying for force religious groups and charities out of business so he can impose his fascist socialist government to fill the vacuum of suffering he created by putting them into an impossible moral predicament: either abandon the theology that you have held for 1,500 years or abandon your charitable work and leave millions of people high and dry. But it is the theology that drives that charity work in the first place. Which makes it like yanking the floor out from under yourself and then trying to stand on thin air.

So on the one hand liberals are demonizing businesses like Chick-Fil-A and literally trying to use the raw power of government to punish them for exercising their free speech rights. And they do so on the “moral grounds” that they ought to be able to punish “anti-gay views.” And on the other hand the same damn liberals are trying to impose godawful unconstitutional restrictions that directly punish religious groups. And the fact that their views are anti-religious views, anti-Christian views and anti-biblical views doesn’t mean a damn thing in a world gone PC-crazy.

One paragraph tells you how crazy this “accomodation” by Obama in forcing religious organizations to provide contraceptive and abortion-producing services even if their religious beliefs forbid such services:

The change would allow religious organizations to refuse to cover contraceptive care. It would also require insurers to offer a plan that does not include contraceptive care in their contracts with nonprofit religious groups. But the insurers would be required to make contraception available free of charge to women anyway.

So if you move the burden back one organizational level everything is okay?

Imagine if you are a manager at an organization such as the Catholic League. According to Obama’s “accomodation” you are exempted – at least until after Obama gets re-elected when he’ll come after you with a vengeance for making him look bad. But even though your health insurance provider is an organization that was created by the Catholic Church, it will NOT be exempted, so all of the Catholic employees at that insurer will still be required to violate their consciences or lose their jobs. But meanwhile you over at the ostensibly exempted Catholic League will be required to tell all employees that they can get birth control and abortion-inducing services because they work for you.

Here’s another example: Holy Cross Hospital would still be required under ObamaCare to provide free access to birth control, abortion and sterilization which it believes is all morally evil. They don’t have to do it “directly” by Obama’s “accomodation”; rather, they have to pay an insurance company to do provide those “mortal sins” for them. Now, on Obama’s magical thinking, the insurance company is providing birth control, abortion and sterilazation for “free.” But that is quite literally insane; of COURSE it won’t be for free. The insurance company is going to increase Holy Cross’ premiums. Which is to say that Holy Cross is still going to be forced to pay to provide “services” that they view as genuinely evil.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit law firm that recently filed three lawsuits on behalf of Catholic institutions against the new contraception rules, has come out against the the administration’s compromise.

“This is a false ‘compromise’ designed to protect the Presiden’s re-election chances, not to protect the right of conscience,” Hannah Smith, an attorney for the group, said in a statement. “Hundreds, if not thousands, of religious institutions are still left out in the cold and will be forced to violate their religious convictions.”

The statement continued: “According to a White House statement, some religious employers will no longer be required to provide insurance coverage for contraception … However, at least three problems remain. First, hundreds if not thousands of religious organizations self insure, meaning that they will still be forced to pay for these services in violation of their religious beliefs. Second, it is unclear which religious organizations are permitted to claim the new exemption, and whether it will extend to for-profit organizations, individuals, or non-denominational organizations. Third, money is fungible, and many religious organizations may still object to being forced to pay money to an insurance company which will turn around and provide contraception to its employees for free.”

I understand some folks in Washington want to treat this as another political wedge issue. But it shouldn’t be. I certainly never saw it that way,” Obama said. “This is an issue where people of good will on both sides of the debate have been sorting through some very complicated questions.”

See? Obama is giving his far-left base exactly what they want while he further divides the country with still another wedge issue. But there’s absolutely nothing political about that.

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

The bare-naked truth is that Obama has been cynically running for re-election since the day he got elected. This low-brow Chicago thug politician has amassed a $1 BILLION political warchest to acheive that end. And simply consider the “core promise” of the Obama campaign that he would “transcend” Republican-Democrat politics, that he would “end the partisan and ideological wars,” that he would “move beyond the divisive politics of Washington,” that he would “bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together.” And think about what Obama is doing right now.

And realize that this incredibly cynical liar is the most evil man who has ever held the office of the presidency of the United States.

President Barack Obama lost my vote yesterday when he declined to expand the exceedingly narrow conscience exemptions proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The issue of conscience protections is so foundational, I do not see how I ever could, in good conscience, vote for this man again.

I do not come at this issue as a Catholic special pleader, who wants only to protect my own, although it was a little bracing to realize that the president’s decision yesterday essentially told us, as Catholics, that there is no room in this great country of ours for the institutions our Church has built over the years to be Catholic in ways that are important to us. Nor, frankly, do I come at the issue as an anti-contraception zealot: I understand that many people, and good Catholics too, reach different conclusions on the matter although I must say that Humanae Vitae in its entirety reads better, and more presciently, every year.

No, I come at this issue as a liberal and a Democrat and as someone who, until yesterday, generally supported the President, as someone who saw in his vision of America a greater concern for each other, a less mean-spirited culture, someone who could, and did, remind the nation that we are our brothers’ keeper, that liberalism has a long vocation in this country of promoting freedom and protecting the interests of the average person against the combined power of the rich, and that we should learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. I defended the University of Notre Dame for honoring this man, and my heart was warmed when President Obama said at Notre Dame: “we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity — diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief. In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.”

To borrow from Emile Zola: J’Accuse!

I accuse you, Mr. President, of dishonoring your own vision by this shameful decision.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of failing to live out the respect for diversity that you so properly and beautifully proclaimed as a cardinal virtue at Notre Dame. Or, are we to believe that diversity is only to be lauded when it advances the interests of those with whom we agree? That’s not diversity. That’s misuse of a noble principle for ignoble ends.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of betraying philosophic liberalism, which began, lest we forget, as a defense of the rights of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be honest and admit that, three hundred years ago, the defense of conscience was not high on the agenda of Holy Mother Church. But, we Catholics learned to embrace the idea that the coercion of conscience is a violation of human dignity. This is a lesson, Mr. President, that you and too many of your fellow liberals have apparently unlearned.

I accuse you, Mr. President, who argued that your experience as a constitutional scholar commended you for the high office you hold, of ignoring the Constitution. Perhaps you were busy last week, but the Supreme Court, on a 9-0 vote, said that the First Amendment still means something and that it trumps even desirable governmental objectives when the two come into conflict. Did you miss the concurring opinion, joined by your own most recent appointment to the court, Justice Kagan, which stated:

“Throughout our Nation’s history, religious bodies have been the preeminent example of private associations that have ‘act[ed] as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State.’ Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619 (1984). In a case like the one now before us—where the goal of the civil law in question, the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities, is so worthy—it is easy to forget that the autonomy of religious groups, both here in the United States and abroad, has often served as a shield against oppressive civil laws. To safeguard this crucial autonomy, we have long recognized that the Religion Clauses protect a private sphere within which religious bodies are free to govern themselves in accordance with their own beliefs. The Constitution guarantees religious bodies ‘independence from secular control or manipulation—in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.’ Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952).”

Pray, do tell, Mr. President, what part of that paragraph did you consider when making this decision? Or, do you like having your Justice Department having its hat handed to it at the Supreme Court?

I accuse you, Mr. President, as leader of the Democratic Party, the primary vehicle for historic political liberalism in this country, of risking all the many achievements of political liberalism, from environmental protection to Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid, by committing a politically stupid act. Do you really think your friends at Planned Parenthood and NARAL were going to support the candidacy of Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich? How does this decision affect the prospects of Democrats winning back the House in districts like Pennsylvania’s Third or Ohio’s First or Virginia’s Fifth districts? How do your chances look today among Catholic swing voters in Scranton and the suburbs of Cincinnati and along the I-4 corridor in Florida? I suppose that there are campaign contributions to consider, but really, sacrificing one’s conscience, or the conscience rights of others, was not worth Wales, was it worth a few extra dollars in your campaign coffers?

I accuse you, Mr. President, of failing to know your history. In 1978, the IRS proposed a rule change affecting the tax exempt status of private Christian schools. The rule would change the way school verified their desegregation policies, putting the burden of proof on the school, not the IRS. By 1978, many of those schools were already desegregated, even though they had first been founded as a means to avoid desegregation of the public schools. But evangelical Christians did not look kindly on the government’s interference in schools they had built themselves and, even though the IRS rescinded the rule change, the original decision was the straw the broke the camel’s back for those who wished to separate themselves from mainstream culture. They formed the Moral Majority, entered that mainstream culture, and helped the Republican Party win the next three presidential elections. You, Mr. President, have struck that same nerve. Catholics built their colleges and universities and hospitals. They did so out of religious conviction and, as often as not, because mainstream institutions did not welcome Catholics. It is one thing to support a policy with which the Catholic Church disagrees but it is quite another to start telling Catholics how to run their own institutions.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of treating shamefully those Catholics who went out on a limb to support you. Do tell, Mr. President, how many bullets have the people at Planned Parenthood taken for you? Sr. Carol Keehan, Father Larry Snyder, Father John Jenkins, these people have scars to show for their willingness to work with you, to support you on your tough political fights. Is this the way you treat people who went to the mat for you?

Zola, of course, wrote his famous essay in response to the Dreyfuss affair. Then, the source of injustice was anti-Semitic bigotry. Today, while I cannot believe that the President himself is an anti-Catholic bigot, he has caved to those who are. In politics, as in life, we are often known by the company we keep. Hmmmm. Sr. Carol Keehan, a woman who has dedicated her life and her ministry to help the ill and the aged or the fundraisers and the lobbyists at NARAL? Is that really a tough call? I have not joined the chorus of those who believe that this administration is “at war” with the Catholic Church. Yet, I must confess, when I first learned the new yesterday, an image came into my head, of Glenn Close and John Malkovich in “Dangerous Liaisons” when Ms. Close looks at Mr. Malkovich and says, “War!” That said, while not wishing to detract one iota from the gravity of this decision, the bishops are well advised not to read more into this than is there. It is a shameful decision to be sure, but it is not the end of the world and war is a thing to be avoided whenever and however possible.

Some Catholics have sought to defend the President, to hope that there might be some silver lining in the decision, to argue that because many Catholics use contraception, or because some states already mandate this kind of coverage, this decision is really no big deal. The fact that there is much to defend in the President’s record does not mean that anyone need defend everything in that record, especially something as indefensible as this decision. And, it is a mistake of analysis to see this as a decision about contraception. The issue here is conscience.

Some commentators, including those in the comment section on my post yesterday, have charged that people like me, Catholics who have been generally supportive of the President, were duped, that we should confess our sins of political apostasy, and go rushing into the arms of a waiting GOP. I respectfully decline the indictment and, even more, the remedy. Nothing that happened yesterday made the contemporary GOP less mean-spirited, or more inclined to support the rights of our immigrant brothers and sisters, or less bellicose in their approach to foreign affairs, or more concerned about the how the government can and should alleviate poverty. It is also worth noting that the night before the decision, Mr. Gingrich said that he would halt the U.S. Justice Department’s suit against the State of Alabama regarding that state’s new anti-immigration law, a law that raises exactly the same kind of issues of religious liberty and the rights of conscience as are raised by the HHS decision. Religious liberty cuts both ways. Nor, is religious liberty the only issue. Voters should still consider how candidates for the presidency are likely to address a host of issues. As for myself, I could not, in good conscience, vote for any of the current Republicans seeking the presidency.

But, yesterday, as soon as I learned of this decision, I knew instantly that I also could not, in good conscience, ever vote for Mr. Obama again. I once had great faith in Mr. Obama’s judgment and leadership. I do not retract a single word I have written supporting him on issues like health care reform, or bringing the troops home from Iraq, or taking aggressive steps to halt the recession and turn the economy around. I will continue to advocate for those policies. But, I can never convince myself that a person capable of making such a dreadful decision is worthy of my respect or my vote.

Even if Obama manages to squirm out of this one, you need to realize that all it will take is an election to enable him to impose his attack on religious values once again.

Catholics represent one out of every four voters in America; they have voted for the winner in every single presidential election going back decades. And nothing would be more appropriate for Obama to be thrown out of office as an intolerant religious bigot and an enemy of the American Constitution that he has so often trampled upon.

Obama says, “You have the right to believe whatever I tell you is right to believe and you have the right to do whatever I force you to do.”